Big Debate on sell-off of Southampton's art collection postponed

A PLANNED debate into the possible sell-off of part of Southampton’s art collection has been postponed.

The Big Debate was due to take place at Southampton Art Gallery on Thursday, March 6, but will now be held at a new date to be announced.

Daily Echo editor Ian Murray and Southampton City Council leader Simon Letts were due to put the case in favour of some of the city’s £150million art collection being sold off to raise funds for art projects in Southampton.

Liz Goodall from the city’s Chipperfield Advisory Committee and Maurice Davies of the Museums Association were to oppose the sell-off.

Kate Thompson, from organisers Business South, said: “The Big Debate was originally conceived as an opportunity for a business audience to learn more about the issue surrounding the future of the city's art collection.

Share article

“It is clear there is a huge amount of public interest in this subject but with the current format, we sadly do not have the space to accommodate a broader audience.

“As a result, Business South has decided to postpone the Big Debate to see if we can find a way to satisfy a wider discussion of this important topic for the city.”

Promoted Stories

Comments (14)

Art is a funny thing. I wouldn't give the crouching woman sculpture house room.

Art is a funny thing. I wouldn't give the crouching woman sculpture house room.sburman

Art is a funny thing. I wouldn't give the crouching woman sculpture house room.

Score: -1

sotonboy84 says...5:20pm Sun 23 Feb 14

What the hell does a business audience have to do with the art collection which belongs to the people of the city? News for you Ian Murray - no amount of selling tickets & debating about selling any of the collection will actually allow you to do so. Most pieces were bequeathed to the city with conditions attached OR bought with money from trusts with the same conditions. Note the change of reason for selling pieces. - to fund "art projects". The useless councils's this city have are hell bent on selling pieces just to get more money to play with in the hope it will ultimately win them votes for all the 'good things' they've done to the city. First it was paying for the Sea City museum, then the arts complex (private development, mainly residential, that already had funding in place) & not the loose term of 'art projects'. As a city we have this collection & it should be used to bring in tourists & generate income from loaning pieces to other collections. Instead the council are so short sighted that they can't see this. Letts wrote to Maria Miller MP & asked for the trust rules around selling pieces to be relaxed & the government refused to relax the rules. Letts is damaging the reputation of the collection every time this subject is bought up & not to mention the huge legal bill he's accruing which is being paid for by us, taxpayers. The collection cannot be sold to fund council projects, pieces can only be sold to buy other pieces or restore existing pieces. The Chipperfield Advisory Committee was appointed by the council due to the conflict of interest of them being trustees. Seems like this was just a tick box exercise as Letts has no regard for the collection or consulting the committee on his plans to sell pieces & they were not aware of his letter to Maria Miller until the Echo published the story. Until this committee is truly independent, the collection is not safe from reputational damage by the council. If you're as passionate about safeguarding our city's assets as I am, please express your concerns to Maria Miller MP, Ed Vaizey MP and/or David Cameron. You can do this by e-mail & the more support the collection receives & the more this corruptness is highlighted, the more support there is from the higher government level to safeguard the collection once & for all.

What the hell does a business audience have to do with the art collection which belongs to the people of the city?
News for you Ian Murray - no amount of selling tickets & debating about selling any of the collection will actually allow you to do so. Most pieces were bequeathed to the city with conditions attached OR bought with money from trusts with the same conditions.
Note the change of reason for selling pieces. - to fund "art projects". The useless councils's this city have are hell bent on selling pieces just to get more money to play with in the hope it will ultimately win them votes for all the 'good things' they've done to the city. First it was paying for the Sea City museum, then the arts complex (private development, mainly residential, that already had funding in place) & not the loose term of 'art projects'.
As a city we have this collection & it should be used to bring in tourists & generate income from loaning pieces to other collections. Instead the council are so short sighted that they can't see this.
Letts wrote to Maria Miller MP & asked for the trust rules around selling pieces to be relaxed & the government refused to relax the rules. Letts is damaging the reputation of the collection every time this subject is bought up & not to mention the huge legal bill he's accruing which is being paid for by us, taxpayers.
The collection cannot be sold to fund council projects, pieces can only be sold to buy other pieces or restore existing pieces.
The Chipperfield Advisory Committee was appointed by the council due to the conflict of interest of them being trustees. Seems like this was just a tick box exercise as Letts has no regard for the collection or consulting the committee on his plans to sell pieces & they were not aware of his letter to Maria Miller until the Echo published the story. Until this committee is truly independent, the collection is not safe from reputational damage by the council.
If you're as passionate about safeguarding our city's assets as I am, please express your concerns to Maria Miller MP, Ed Vaizey MP and/or David Cameron. You can do this by e-mail & the more support the collection receives & the more this corruptness is highlighted, the more support there is from the higher government level to safeguard the collection once & for all.sotonboy84

What the hell does a business audience have to do with the art collection which belongs to the people of the city? News for you Ian Murray - no amount of selling tickets & debating about selling any of the collection will actually allow you to do so. Most pieces were bequeathed to the city with conditions attached OR bought with money from trusts with the same conditions. Note the change of reason for selling pieces. - to fund "art projects". The useless councils's this city have are hell bent on selling pieces just to get more money to play with in the hope it will ultimately win them votes for all the 'good things' they've done to the city. First it was paying for the Sea City museum, then the arts complex (private development, mainly residential, that already had funding in place) & not the loose term of 'art projects'. As a city we have this collection & it should be used to bring in tourists & generate income from loaning pieces to other collections. Instead the council are so short sighted that they can't see this. Letts wrote to Maria Miller MP & asked for the trust rules around selling pieces to be relaxed & the government refused to relax the rules. Letts is damaging the reputation of the collection every time this subject is bought up & not to mention the huge legal bill he's accruing which is being paid for by us, taxpayers. The collection cannot be sold to fund council projects, pieces can only be sold to buy other pieces or restore existing pieces. The Chipperfield Advisory Committee was appointed by the council due to the conflict of interest of them being trustees. Seems like this was just a tick box exercise as Letts has no regard for the collection or consulting the committee on his plans to sell pieces & they were not aware of his letter to Maria Miller until the Echo published the story. Until this committee is truly independent, the collection is not safe from reputational damage by the council. If you're as passionate about safeguarding our city's assets as I am, please express your concerns to Maria Miller MP, Ed Vaizey MP and/or David Cameron. You can do this by e-mail & the more support the collection receives & the more this corruptness is highlighted, the more support there is from the higher government level to safeguard the collection once & for all.

Score: 11

SotonGreen says...5:23pm Sun 23 Feb 14

It was clear Labour policy in opposition to oppose sell off of art when the Tories proposed it. This is utter hyprocrisy on behalf of Letts and Bogle.

It was clear Labour policy in opposition to oppose sell off of art when the Tories proposed it. This is utter hyprocrisy on behalf of Letts and Bogle.SotonGreen

It was clear Labour policy in opposition to oppose sell off of art when the Tories proposed it. This is utter hyprocrisy on behalf of Letts and Bogle.

Score: 7

charrlee says...6:00pm Sun 23 Feb 14

sotonboy84 wrote…

What the hell does a business audience have to do with the art collection which belongs to the people of the city? News for you Ian Murray - no amount of selling tickets & debating about selling any of the collection will actually allow you to do so. Most pieces were bequeathed to the city with conditions attached OR bought with money from trusts with the same conditions. Note the change of reason for selling pieces. - to fund "art projects". The useless councils's this city have are hell bent on selling pieces just to get more money to play with in the hope it will ultimately win them votes for all the 'good things' they've done to the city. First it was paying for the Sea City museum, then the arts complex (private development, mainly residential, that already had funding in place) & not the loose term of 'art projects'. As a city we have this collection & it should be used to bring in tourists & generate income from loaning pieces to other collections. Instead the council are so short sighted that they can't see this. Letts wrote to Maria Miller MP & asked for the trust rules around selling pieces to be relaxed & the government refused to relax the rules. Letts is damaging the reputation of the collection every time this subject is bought up & not to mention the huge legal bill he's accruing which is being paid for by us, taxpayers. The collection cannot be sold to fund council projects, pieces can only be sold to buy other pieces or restore existing pieces. The Chipperfield Advisory Committee was appointed by the council due to the conflict of interest of them being trustees. Seems like this was just a tick box exercise as Letts has no regard for the collection or consulting the committee on his plans to sell pieces & they were not aware of his letter to Maria Miller until the Echo published the story. Until this committee is truly independent, the collection is not safe from reputational damage by the council. If you're as passionate about safeguarding our city's assets as I am, please express your concerns to Maria Miller MP, Ed Vaizey MP and/or David Cameron. You can do this by e-mail & the more support the collection receives & the more this corruptness is highlighted, the more support there is from the higher government level to safeguard the collection once & for all.

Let him sell it. Then prosecute for breaking the conditions of the trust. We get the pictures back, and Letts' career is over.

[quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote:
What the hell does a business audience have to do with the art collection which belongs to the people of the city?
News for you Ian Murray - no amount of selling tickets & debating about selling any of the collection will actually allow you to do so. Most pieces were bequeathed to the city with conditions attached OR bought with money from trusts with the same conditions.
Note the change of reason for selling pieces. - to fund "art projects". The useless councils's this city have are hell bent on selling pieces just to get more money to play with in the hope it will ultimately win them votes for all the 'good things' they've done to the city. First it was paying for the Sea City museum, then the arts complex (private development, mainly residential, that already had funding in place) & not the loose term of 'art projects'.
As a city we have this collection & it should be used to bring in tourists & generate income from loaning pieces to other collections. Instead the council are so short sighted that they can't see this.
Letts wrote to Maria Miller MP & asked for the trust rules around selling pieces to be relaxed & the government refused to relax the rules. Letts is damaging the reputation of the collection every time this subject is bought up & not to mention the huge legal bill he's accruing which is being paid for by us, taxpayers.
The collection cannot be sold to fund council projects, pieces can only be sold to buy other pieces or restore existing pieces.
The Chipperfield Advisory Committee was appointed by the council due to the conflict of interest of them being trustees. Seems like this was just a tick box exercise as Letts has no regard for the collection or consulting the committee on his plans to sell pieces & they were not aware of his letter to Maria Miller until the Echo published the story. Until this committee is truly independent, the collection is not safe from reputational damage by the council.
If you're as passionate about safeguarding our city's assets as I am, please express your concerns to Maria Miller MP, Ed Vaizey MP and/or David Cameron. You can do this by e-mail & the more support the collection receives & the more this corruptness is highlighted, the more support there is from the higher government level to safeguard the collection once & for all.[/p][/quote]Let him sell it. Then prosecute for breaking the conditions of the trust. We get the pictures back, and Letts' career is over.charrlee

sotonboy84 wrote…

What the hell does a business audience have to do with the art collection which belongs to the people of the city? News for you Ian Murray - no amount of selling tickets & debating about selling any of the collection will actually allow you to do so. Most pieces were bequeathed to the city with conditions attached OR bought with money from trusts with the same conditions. Note the change of reason for selling pieces. - to fund "art projects". The useless councils's this city have are hell bent on selling pieces just to get more money to play with in the hope it will ultimately win them votes for all the 'good things' they've done to the city. First it was paying for the Sea City museum, then the arts complex (private development, mainly residential, that already had funding in place) & not the loose term of 'art projects'. As a city we have this collection & it should be used to bring in tourists & generate income from loaning pieces to other collections. Instead the council are so short sighted that they can't see this. Letts wrote to Maria Miller MP & asked for the trust rules around selling pieces to be relaxed & the government refused to relax the rules. Letts is damaging the reputation of the collection every time this subject is bought up & not to mention the huge legal bill he's accruing which is being paid for by us, taxpayers. The collection cannot be sold to fund council projects, pieces can only be sold to buy other pieces or restore existing pieces. The Chipperfield Advisory Committee was appointed by the council due to the conflict of interest of them being trustees. Seems like this was just a tick box exercise as Letts has no regard for the collection or consulting the committee on his plans to sell pieces & they were not aware of his letter to Maria Miller until the Echo published the story. Until this committee is truly independent, the collection is not safe from reputational damage by the council. If you're as passionate about safeguarding our city's assets as I am, please express your concerns to Maria Miller MP, Ed Vaizey MP and/or David Cameron. You can do this by e-mail & the more support the collection receives & the more this corruptness is highlighted, the more support there is from the higher government level to safeguard the collection once & for all.

Let him sell it. Then prosecute for breaking the conditions of the trust. We get the pictures back, and Letts' career is over.

Score: 0

charrlee says...6:02pm Sun 23 Feb 14

and Murray may have to resign !

and Murray may have to resign !charrlee

and Murray may have to resign !

Score: 8

sotonboy84 says...6:23pm Sun 23 Feb 14

charrlee wrote…

sotonboy84 wrote…

What the hell does a business audience have to do with the art collection which belongs to the people of the city? News for you Ian Murray - no amount of selling tickets & debating about selling any of the collection will actually allow you to do so. Most pieces were bequeathed to the city with conditions attached OR bought with money from trusts with the same conditions. Note the change of reason for selling pieces. - to fund "art projects". The useless councils's this city have are hell bent on selling pieces just to get more money to play with in the hope it will ultimately win them votes for all the 'good things' they've done to the city. First it was paying for the Sea City museum, then the arts complex (private development, mainly residential, that already had funding in place) & not the loose term of 'art projects'. As a city we have this collection & it should be used to bring in tourists & generate income from loaning pieces to other collections. Instead the council are so short sighted that they can't see this. Letts wrote to Maria Miller MP & asked for the trust rules around selling pieces to be relaxed & the government refused to relax the rules. Letts is damaging the reputation of the collection every time this subject is bought up & not to mention the huge legal bill he's accruing which is being paid for by us, taxpayers. The collection cannot be sold to fund council projects, pieces can only be sold to buy other pieces or restore existing pieces. The Chipperfield Advisory Committee was appointed by the council due to the conflict of interest of them being trustees. Seems like this was just a tick box exercise as Letts has no regard for the collection or consulting the committee on his plans to sell pieces & they were not aware of his letter to Maria Miller until the Echo published the story. Until this committee is truly independent, the collection is not safe from reputational damage by the council. If you're as passionate about safeguarding our city's assets as I am, please express your concerns to Maria Miller MP, Ed Vaizey MP and/or David Cameron. You can do this by e-mail & the more support the collection receives & the more this corruptness is highlighted, the more support there is from the higher government level to safeguard the collection once & for all.

Let him sell it. Then prosecute for breaking the conditions of the trust. We get the pictures back, and Letts' career is over.

I don't think Letts' 'career' has even started! It's criminal, various people have bequeathed art & money to the city's art collection over the years with absolutely nothing to do with the council & they feel that as we know have a valuable collection they can cash in on it. It's theft. They need to learn that they're an 'administration' & administrating the city's services is what they should do. They're not a private company who can cash in on the city's assets to fund their own ridiculous schemes.

[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote:
What the hell does a business audience have to do with the art collection which belongs to the people of the city?
News for you Ian Murray - no amount of selling tickets & debating about selling any of the collection will actually allow you to do so. Most pieces were bequeathed to the city with conditions attached OR bought with money from trusts with the same conditions.
Note the change of reason for selling pieces. - to fund "art projects". The useless councils's this city have are hell bent on selling pieces just to get more money to play with in the hope it will ultimately win them votes for all the 'good things' they've done to the city. First it was paying for the Sea City museum, then the arts complex (private development, mainly residential, that already had funding in place) & not the loose term of 'art projects'.
As a city we have this collection & it should be used to bring in tourists & generate income from loaning pieces to other collections. Instead the council are so short sighted that they can't see this.
Letts wrote to Maria Miller MP & asked for the trust rules around selling pieces to be relaxed & the government refused to relax the rules. Letts is damaging the reputation of the collection every time this subject is bought up & not to mention the huge legal bill he's accruing which is being paid for by us, taxpayers.
The collection cannot be sold to fund council projects, pieces can only be sold to buy other pieces or restore existing pieces.
The Chipperfield Advisory Committee was appointed by the council due to the conflict of interest of them being trustees. Seems like this was just a tick box exercise as Letts has no regard for the collection or consulting the committee on his plans to sell pieces & they were not aware of his letter to Maria Miller until the Echo published the story. Until this committee is truly independent, the collection is not safe from reputational damage by the council.
If you're as passionate about safeguarding our city's assets as I am, please express your concerns to Maria Miller MP, Ed Vaizey MP and/or David Cameron. You can do this by e-mail & the more support the collection receives & the more this corruptness is highlighted, the more support there is from the higher government level to safeguard the collection once & for all.[/p][/quote]Let him sell it. Then prosecute for breaking the conditions of the trust. We get the pictures back, and Letts' career is over.[/p][/quote]I don't think Letts' 'career' has even started!
It's criminal, various people have bequeathed art & money to the city's art collection over the years with absolutely nothing to do with the council & they feel that as we know have a valuable collection they can cash in on it. It's theft.
They need to learn that they're an 'administration' & administrating the city's services is what they should do. They're not a private company who can cash in on the city's assets to fund their own ridiculous schemes.sotonboy84

charrlee wrote…

sotonboy84 wrote…

What the hell does a business audience have to do with the art collection which belongs to the people of the city? News for you Ian Murray - no amount of selling tickets & debating about selling any of the collection will actually allow you to do so. Most pieces were bequeathed to the city with conditions attached OR bought with money from trusts with the same conditions. Note the change of reason for selling pieces. - to fund "art projects". The useless councils's this city have are hell bent on selling pieces just to get more money to play with in the hope it will ultimately win them votes for all the 'good things' they've done to the city. First it was paying for the Sea City museum, then the arts complex (private development, mainly residential, that already had funding in place) & not the loose term of 'art projects'. As a city we have this collection & it should be used to bring in tourists & generate income from loaning pieces to other collections. Instead the council are so short sighted that they can't see this. Letts wrote to Maria Miller MP & asked for the trust rules around selling pieces to be relaxed & the government refused to relax the rules. Letts is damaging the reputation of the collection every time this subject is bought up & not to mention the huge legal bill he's accruing which is being paid for by us, taxpayers. The collection cannot be sold to fund council projects, pieces can only be sold to buy other pieces or restore existing pieces. The Chipperfield Advisory Committee was appointed by the council due to the conflict of interest of them being trustees. Seems like this was just a tick box exercise as Letts has no regard for the collection or consulting the committee on his plans to sell pieces & they were not aware of his letter to Maria Miller until the Echo published the story. Until this committee is truly independent, the collection is not safe from reputational damage by the council. If you're as passionate about safeguarding our city's assets as I am, please express your concerns to Maria Miller MP, Ed Vaizey MP and/or David Cameron. You can do this by e-mail & the more support the collection receives & the more this corruptness is highlighted, the more support there is from the higher government level to safeguard the collection once & for all.

Let him sell it. Then prosecute for breaking the conditions of the trust. We get the pictures back, and Letts' career is over.

I don't think Letts' 'career' has even started! It's criminal, various people have bequeathed art & money to the city's art collection over the years with absolutely nothing to do with the council & they feel that as we know have a valuable collection they can cash in on it. It's theft. They need to learn that they're an 'administration' & administrating the city's services is what they should do. They're not a private company who can cash in on the city's assets to fund their own ridiculous schemes.

Score: 6

charrlee says...6:35pm Sun 23 Feb 14

sotonboy84 wrote…

charrlee wrote…

sotonboy84 wrote…

What the hell does a business audience have to do with the art collection which belongs to the people of the city? News for you Ian Murray - no amount of selling tickets & debating about selling any of the collection will actually allow you to do so. Most pieces were bequeathed to the city with conditions attached OR bought with money from trusts with the same conditions. Note the change of reason for selling pieces. - to fund "art projects". The useless councils's this city have are hell bent on selling pieces just to get more money to play with in the hope it will ultimately win them votes for all the 'good things' they've done to the city. First it was paying for the Sea City museum, then the arts complex (private development, mainly residential, that already had funding in place) & not the loose term of 'art projects'. As a city we have this collection & it should be used to bring in tourists & generate income from loaning pieces to other collections. Instead the council are so short sighted that they can't see this. Letts wrote to Maria Miller MP & asked for the trust rules around selling pieces to be relaxed & the government refused to relax the rules. Letts is damaging the reputation of the collection every time this subject is bought up & not to mention the huge legal bill he's accruing which is being paid for by us, taxpayers. The collection cannot be sold to fund council projects, pieces can only be sold to buy other pieces or restore existing pieces. The Chipperfield Advisory Committee was appointed by the council due to the conflict of interest of them being trustees. Seems like this was just a tick box exercise as Letts has no regard for the collection or consulting the committee on his plans to sell pieces & they were not aware of his letter to Maria Miller until the Echo published the story. Until this committee is truly independent, the collection is not safe from reputational damage by the council. If you're as passionate about safeguarding our city's assets as I am, please express your concerns to Maria Miller MP, Ed Vaizey MP and/or David Cameron. You can do this by e-mail & the more support the collection receives & the more this corruptness is highlighted, the more support there is from the higher government level to safeguard the collection once & for all.

Let him sell it. Then prosecute for breaking the conditions of the trust. We get the pictures back, and Letts' career is over.

I don't think Letts' 'career' has even started! It's criminal, various people have bequeathed art & money to the city's art collection over the years with absolutely nothing to do with the council & they feel that as we know have a valuable collection they can cash in on it. It's theft. They need to learn that they're an 'administration' & administrating the city's services is what they should do. They're not a private company who can cash in on the city's assets to fund their own ridiculous schemes.

Sorry I joked about it. I've been involved in comments on this subject before. The truth is I totally agree with you.

[quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote:
What the hell does a business audience have to do with the art collection which belongs to the people of the city?
News for you Ian Murray - no amount of selling tickets & debating about selling any of the collection will actually allow you to do so. Most pieces were bequeathed to the city with conditions attached OR bought with money from trusts with the same conditions.
Note the change of reason for selling pieces. - to fund "art projects". The useless councils's this city have are hell bent on selling pieces just to get more money to play with in the hope it will ultimately win them votes for all the 'good things' they've done to the city. First it was paying for the Sea City museum, then the arts complex (private development, mainly residential, that already had funding in place) & not the loose term of 'art projects'.
As a city we have this collection & it should be used to bring in tourists & generate income from loaning pieces to other collections. Instead the council are so short sighted that they can't see this.
Letts wrote to Maria Miller MP & asked for the trust rules around selling pieces to be relaxed & the government refused to relax the rules. Letts is damaging the reputation of the collection every time this subject is bought up & not to mention the huge legal bill he's accruing which is being paid for by us, taxpayers.
The collection cannot be sold to fund council projects, pieces can only be sold to buy other pieces or restore existing pieces.
The Chipperfield Advisory Committee was appointed by the council due to the conflict of interest of them being trustees. Seems like this was just a tick box exercise as Letts has no regard for the collection or consulting the committee on his plans to sell pieces & they were not aware of his letter to Maria Miller until the Echo published the story. Until this committee is truly independent, the collection is not safe from reputational damage by the council.
If you're as passionate about safeguarding our city's assets as I am, please express your concerns to Maria Miller MP, Ed Vaizey MP and/or David Cameron. You can do this by e-mail & the more support the collection receives & the more this corruptness is highlighted, the more support there is from the higher government level to safeguard the collection once & for all.[/p][/quote]Let him sell it. Then prosecute for breaking the conditions of the trust. We get the pictures back, and Letts' career is over.[/p][/quote]I don't think Letts' 'career' has even started!
It's criminal, various people have bequeathed art & money to the city's art collection over the years with absolutely nothing to do with the council & they feel that as we know have a valuable collection they can cash in on it. It's theft.
They need to learn that they're an 'administration' & administrating the city's services is what they should do. They're not a private company who can cash in on the city's assets to fund their own ridiculous schemes.[/p][/quote]Sorry I joked about it. I've been involved in comments on this subject before. The truth is I totally agree with you.charrlee

sotonboy84 wrote…

charrlee wrote…

sotonboy84 wrote…

What the hell does a business audience have to do with the art collection which belongs to the people of the city? News for you Ian Murray - no amount of selling tickets & debating about selling any of the collection will actually allow you to do so. Most pieces were bequeathed to the city with conditions attached OR bought with money from trusts with the same conditions. Note the change of reason for selling pieces. - to fund "art projects". The useless councils's this city have are hell bent on selling pieces just to get more money to play with in the hope it will ultimately win them votes for all the 'good things' they've done to the city. First it was paying for the Sea City museum, then the arts complex (private development, mainly residential, that already had funding in place) & not the loose term of 'art projects'. As a city we have this collection & it should be used to bring in tourists & generate income from loaning pieces to other collections. Instead the council are so short sighted that they can't see this. Letts wrote to Maria Miller MP & asked for the trust rules around selling pieces to be relaxed & the government refused to relax the rules. Letts is damaging the reputation of the collection every time this subject is bought up & not to mention the huge legal bill he's accruing which is being paid for by us, taxpayers. The collection cannot be sold to fund council projects, pieces can only be sold to buy other pieces or restore existing pieces. The Chipperfield Advisory Committee was appointed by the council due to the conflict of interest of them being trustees. Seems like this was just a tick box exercise as Letts has no regard for the collection or consulting the committee on his plans to sell pieces & they were not aware of his letter to Maria Miller until the Echo published the story. Until this committee is truly independent, the collection is not safe from reputational damage by the council. If you're as passionate about safeguarding our city's assets as I am, please express your concerns to Maria Miller MP, Ed Vaizey MP and/or David Cameron. You can do this by e-mail & the more support the collection receives & the more this corruptness is highlighted, the more support there is from the higher government level to safeguard the collection once & for all.

Let him sell it. Then prosecute for breaking the conditions of the trust. We get the pictures back, and Letts' career is over.

I don't think Letts' 'career' has even started! It's criminal, various people have bequeathed art & money to the city's art collection over the years with absolutely nothing to do with the council & they feel that as we know have a valuable collection they can cash in on it. It's theft. They need to learn that they're an 'administration' & administrating the city's services is what they should do. They're not a private company who can cash in on the city's assets to fund their own ridiculous schemes.

Sorry I joked about it. I've been involved in comments on this subject before. The truth is I totally agree with you.

Score: 6

in search of the truth says...10:53pm Sun 23 Feb 14

Ahead of this planned so-called “ debate “ a freedom of information request should be made to verify any conditions that bequests of art held in the city’s art collection carry, in order to quantify if indeed any items can be disposed of by the council. I also believe that Daily Echo editor Ian Murray is in danger of overstepping the mark as he is the editor of the Daily Echo and should act as Devils Advocate in this instance, and not take sides . If however he wishes to put his career on the line , then that is his choice. If the people of Southampton beat off this attempt to sell off the family silver, then Ian Murray’s position representing the city’s newspaper would be untenable and he should resign as Daily Echo editor because he cannot in all honesty represent the people of Southampton. Once you sell off the family silver you won't ever be in a position to buy it back in future . The art collections held in trust by towns and cities have been bestowed to the citizens in those towns and cities by rich philanthropists for the benefit of all citizens . If you sell off parts of your cultural heritage then nobody will want to bestow their collections of art etc. to the city, because they will never trust those in power ever again. I wish the citizens of Southampton the very best in their fight to hold onto the family silver.

Ahead of this planned so-called “ debate “ a freedom of information request should be made to verify any conditions that bequests of art held in the city’s art collection carry, in order to quantify if indeed any items can be disposed of by the council.
I also believe that Daily Echo editor Ian Murray is in danger of overstepping the mark as he is the editor of the Daily Echo and should act as Devils Advocate in this instance, and not take sides . If however he wishes to put his career on the line , then that is his choice. If the people of Southampton beat off this attempt to sell off the family silver, then Ian Murray’s position representing the city’s newspaper would be untenable and he should resign as Daily Echo editor because he cannot in all honesty represent the people of Southampton.
Once you sell off the family silver you won't ever be in a position to buy it back in future .
The art collections held in trust by towns and cities have been bestowed to the citizens in those towns and cities by rich philanthropists for the benefit of all citizens . If you sell off parts of your cultural heritage then nobody will want to bestow their collections of art etc. to the city, because they will never trust those in power ever again.
I wish the citizens of Southampton the very best in their fight to hold onto the family silver.in search of the truth

Ahead of this planned so-called “ debate “ a freedom of information request should be made to verify any conditions that bequests of art held in the city’s art collection carry, in order to quantify if indeed any items can be disposed of by the council. I also believe that Daily Echo editor Ian Murray is in danger of overstepping the mark as he is the editor of the Daily Echo and should act as Devils Advocate in this instance, and not take sides . If however he wishes to put his career on the line , then that is his choice. If the people of Southampton beat off this attempt to sell off the family silver, then Ian Murray’s position representing the city’s newspaper would be untenable and he should resign as Daily Echo editor because he cannot in all honesty represent the people of Southampton. Once you sell off the family silver you won't ever be in a position to buy it back in future . The art collections held in trust by towns and cities have been bestowed to the citizens in those towns and cities by rich philanthropists for the benefit of all citizens . If you sell off parts of your cultural heritage then nobody will want to bestow their collections of art etc. to the city, because they will never trust those in power ever again. I wish the citizens of Southampton the very best in their fight to hold onto the family silver.

Score: 6

03alpe01 says...11:50pm Sun 23 Feb 14

yahoo!

yahoo!03alpe01

yahoo!

Score: 1

KSO16R says...5:55am Mon 24 Feb 14

Letts save the bitterne pub and sell the city's art . . . You are losing it councillor

Letts save the bitterne pub and sell the city's art . . . You are losing it councillorKSO16R

Letts save the bitterne pub and sell the city's art . . . You are losing it councillor

Score: 5

sotonboy84 says...7:20am Mon 24 Feb 14

in search of the truth wrote…

Ahead of this planned so-called “ debate “ a freedom of information request should be made to verify any conditions that bequests of art held in the city’s art collection carry, in order to quantify if indeed any items can be disposed of by the council. I also believe that Daily Echo editor Ian Murray is in danger of overstepping the mark as he is the editor of the Daily Echo and should act as Devils Advocate in this instance, and not take sides . If however he wishes to put his career on the line , then that is his choice. If the people of Southampton beat off this attempt to sell off the family silver, then Ian Murray’s position representing the city’s newspaper would be untenable and he should resign as Daily Echo editor because he cannot in all honesty represent the people of Southampton. Once you sell off the family silver you won't ever be in a position to buy it back in future . The art collections held in trust by towns and cities have been bestowed to the citizens in those towns and cities by rich philanthropists for the benefit of all citizens . If you sell off parts of your cultural heritage then nobody will want to bestow their collections of art etc. to the city, because they will never trust those in power ever again. I wish the citizens of Southampton the very best in their fight to hold onto the family silver.

The majority of pieces have conditions attached. The two pieces that were originally earmarked for sale (Rodin sculpture & Munnings painting) were both bought through the Chipperfield trust, the first trust that bequeathed his personal art collection & funds to buy more works & build a gallery & school of art. The rules of these trusts are very clear & Letts has written to Maria Miller & asked fit the rules to be relaxed. The request was refused. The purpose of this stages debate that they are selling tickets for is to exclude the majority of the city & trying to gain support from unconnected business. Again, completely disregarding the people of the city. The majority of city residents don't want this useless council damaging the collection any more & safeguarding it by forming a truly independent trust is the only way to stop the damage. Maybe the Echo should run a poll & get a clear view of what the city's residents wants & back the support of city residents from this. Of course they won't as Murray is supporting his own personal view through the Echo - something the press complaints commission would find interesting.

[quote][p][bold]in search of the truth[/bold] wrote:
Ahead of this planned so-called “ debate “ a freedom of information request should be made to verify any conditions that bequests of art held in the city’s art collection carry, in order to quantify if indeed any items can be disposed of by the council.
I also believe that Daily Echo editor Ian Murray is in danger of overstepping the mark as he is the editor of the Daily Echo and should act as Devils Advocate in this instance, and not take sides . If however he wishes to put his career on the line , then that is his choice. If the people of Southampton beat off this attempt to sell off the family silver, then Ian Murray’s position representing the city’s newspaper would be untenable and he should resign as Daily Echo editor because he cannot in all honesty represent the people of Southampton.
Once you sell off the family silver you won't ever be in a position to buy it back in future .
The art collections held in trust by towns and cities have been bestowed to the citizens in those towns and cities by rich philanthropists for the benefit of all citizens . If you sell off parts of your cultural heritage then nobody will want to bestow their collections of art etc. to the city, because they will never trust those in power ever again.
I wish the citizens of Southampton the very best in their fight to hold onto the family silver.[/p][/quote]The majority of pieces have conditions attached. The two pieces that were originally earmarked for sale (Rodin sculpture & Munnings painting) were both bought through the Chipperfield trust, the first trust that bequeathed his personal art collection & funds to buy more works & build a gallery & school of art.
The rules of these trusts are very clear & Letts has written to Maria Miller & asked fit the rules to be relaxed. The request was refused.
The purpose of this stages debate that they are selling tickets for is to exclude the majority of the city & trying to gain support from unconnected business. Again, completely disregarding the people of the city.
The majority of city residents don't want this useless council damaging the collection any more & safeguarding it by forming a truly independent trust is the only way to stop the damage.
Maybe the Echo should run a poll & get a clear view of what the city's residents wants & back the support of city residents from this. Of course they won't as Murray is supporting his own personal view through the Echo - something the press complaints commission would find interesting.sotonboy84

in search of the truth wrote…

Ahead of this planned so-called “ debate “ a freedom of information request should be made to verify any conditions that bequests of art held in the city’s art collection carry, in order to quantify if indeed any items can be disposed of by the council. I also believe that Daily Echo editor Ian Murray is in danger of overstepping the mark as he is the editor of the Daily Echo and should act as Devils Advocate in this instance, and not take sides . If however he wishes to put his career on the line , then that is his choice. If the people of Southampton beat off this attempt to sell off the family silver, then Ian Murray’s position representing the city’s newspaper would be untenable and he should resign as Daily Echo editor because he cannot in all honesty represent the people of Southampton. Once you sell off the family silver you won't ever be in a position to buy it back in future . The art collections held in trust by towns and cities have been bestowed to the citizens in those towns and cities by rich philanthropists for the benefit of all citizens . If you sell off parts of your cultural heritage then nobody will want to bestow their collections of art etc. to the city, because they will never trust those in power ever again. I wish the citizens of Southampton the very best in their fight to hold onto the family silver.

The majority of pieces have conditions attached. The two pieces that were originally earmarked for sale (Rodin sculpture & Munnings painting) were both bought through the Chipperfield trust, the first trust that bequeathed his personal art collection & funds to buy more works & build a gallery & school of art. The rules of these trusts are very clear & Letts has written to Maria Miller & asked fit the rules to be relaxed. The request was refused. The purpose of this stages debate that they are selling tickets for is to exclude the majority of the city & trying to gain support from unconnected business. Again, completely disregarding the people of the city. The majority of city residents don't want this useless council damaging the collection any more & safeguarding it by forming a truly independent trust is the only way to stop the damage. Maybe the Echo should run a poll & get a clear view of what the city's residents wants & back the support of city residents from this. Of course they won't as Murray is supporting his own personal view through the Echo - something the press complaints commission would find interesting.

Score: 8

in search of the truth says...7:58am Mon 24 Feb 14

sotonboy84 wrote…

in search of the truth wrote…

Ahead of this planned so-called “ debate “ a freedom of information request should be made to verify any conditions that bequests of art held in the city’s art collection carry, in order to quantify if indeed any items can be disposed of by the council. I also believe that Daily Echo editor Ian Murray is in danger of overstepping the mark as he is the editor of the Daily Echo and should act as Devils Advocate in this instance, and not take sides . If however he wishes to put his career on the line , then that is his choice. If the people of Southampton beat off this attempt to sell off the family silver, then Ian Murray’s position representing the city’s newspaper would be untenable and he should resign as Daily Echo editor because he cannot in all honesty represent the people of Southampton. Once you sell off the family silver you won't ever be in a position to buy it back in future . The art collections held in trust by towns and cities have been bestowed to the citizens in those towns and cities by rich philanthropists for the benefit of all citizens . If you sell off parts of your cultural heritage then nobody will want to bestow their collections of art etc. to the city, because they will never trust those in power ever again. I wish the citizens of Southampton the very best in their fight to hold onto the family silver.

The majority of pieces have conditions attached. The two pieces that were originally earmarked for sale (Rodin sculpture & Munnings painting) were both bought through the Chipperfield trust, the first trust that bequeathed his personal art collection & funds to buy more works & build a gallery & school of art. The rules of these trusts are very clear & Letts has written to Maria Miller & asked fit the rules to be relaxed. The request was refused. The purpose of this stages debate that they are selling tickets for is to exclude the majority of the city & trying to gain support from unconnected business. Again, completely disregarding the people of the city. The majority of city residents don't want this useless council damaging the collection any more & safeguarding it by forming a truly independent trust is the only way to stop the damage. Maybe the Echo should run a poll & get a clear view of what the city's residents wants & back the support of city residents from this. Of course they won't as Murray is supporting his own personal view through the Echo - something the press complaints commission would find interesting.

I think that involving English Heritage and other cultural bodies will put pressure on your council to abandon this destructive policy. Lodging a formal complaint directly to the Press Complaints Commission and Newsquest who own The Daily Echo, regarding the unacceptable mis-use by Ian Murry of his position as editor of The Daily Echo would also help. Pointing out to the papers owners that this matter is damaging the relationship between the paper and the local readership that it supposedly represents and serves. If the collections are held in trust ( bequeathed to the city's art gallery and citizens ), then I think they should be safe, but I would still put up a fight until it is absolutely guaranteed once and for all that they cannot be sold.

[quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]in search of the truth[/bold] wrote:
Ahead of this planned so-called “ debate “ a freedom of information request should be made to verify any conditions that bequests of art held in the city’s art collection carry, in order to quantify if indeed any items can be disposed of by the council.
I also believe that Daily Echo editor Ian Murray is in danger of overstepping the mark as he is the editor of the Daily Echo and should act as Devils Advocate in this instance, and not take sides . If however he wishes to put his career on the line , then that is his choice. If the people of Southampton beat off this attempt to sell off the family silver, then Ian Murray’s position representing the city’s newspaper would be untenable and he should resign as Daily Echo editor because he cannot in all honesty represent the people of Southampton.
Once you sell off the family silver you won't ever be in a position to buy it back in future .
The art collections held in trust by towns and cities have been bestowed to the citizens in those towns and cities by rich philanthropists for the benefit of all citizens . If you sell off parts of your cultural heritage then nobody will want to bestow their collections of art etc. to the city, because they will never trust those in power ever again.
I wish the citizens of Southampton the very best in their fight to hold onto the family silver.[/p][/quote]The majority of pieces have conditions attached. The two pieces that were originally earmarked for sale (Rodin sculpture & Munnings painting) were both bought through the Chipperfield trust, the first trust that bequeathed his personal art collection & funds to buy more works & build a gallery & school of art.
The rules of these trusts are very clear & Letts has written to Maria Miller & asked fit the rules to be relaxed. The request was refused.
The purpose of this stages debate that they are selling tickets for is to exclude the majority of the city & trying to gain support from unconnected business. Again, completely disregarding the people of the city.
The majority of city residents don't want this useless council damaging the collection any more & safeguarding it by forming a truly independent trust is the only way to stop the damage.
Maybe the Echo should run a poll & get a clear view of what the city's residents wants & back the support of city residents from this. Of course they won't as Murray is supporting his own personal view through the Echo - something the press complaints commission would find interesting.[/p][/quote]I think that involving English Heritage and other cultural bodies will put pressure on your council to abandon this destructive policy.
Lodging a formal complaint directly to the Press Complaints Commission and Newsquest who own The Daily Echo, regarding the unacceptable mis-use by Ian Murry of his position as editor of The Daily Echo would also help. Pointing out to the papers owners that this matter is damaging the relationship between the paper and the local readership that it supposedly represents and serves.
If the collections are held in trust ( bequeathed to the city's art gallery and citizens ), then I think they should be safe, but I would still put up a fight until it is absolutely guaranteed once and for all that they cannot be sold.in search of the truth

sotonboy84 wrote…

in search of the truth wrote…

Ahead of this planned so-called “ debate “ a freedom of information request should be made to verify any conditions that bequests of art held in the city’s art collection carry, in order to quantify if indeed any items can be disposed of by the council. I also believe that Daily Echo editor Ian Murray is in danger of overstepping the mark as he is the editor of the Daily Echo and should act as Devils Advocate in this instance, and not take sides . If however he wishes to put his career on the line , then that is his choice. If the people of Southampton beat off this attempt to sell off the family silver, then Ian Murray’s position representing the city’s newspaper would be untenable and he should resign as Daily Echo editor because he cannot in all honesty represent the people of Southampton. Once you sell off the family silver you won't ever be in a position to buy it back in future . The art collections held in trust by towns and cities have been bestowed to the citizens in those towns and cities by rich philanthropists for the benefit of all citizens . If you sell off parts of your cultural heritage then nobody will want to bestow their collections of art etc. to the city, because they will never trust those in power ever again. I wish the citizens of Southampton the very best in their fight to hold onto the family silver.

The majority of pieces have conditions attached. The two pieces that were originally earmarked for sale (Rodin sculpture & Munnings painting) were both bought through the Chipperfield trust, the first trust that bequeathed his personal art collection & funds to buy more works & build a gallery & school of art. The rules of these trusts are very clear & Letts has written to Maria Miller & asked fit the rules to be relaxed. The request was refused. The purpose of this stages debate that they are selling tickets for is to exclude the majority of the city & trying to gain support from unconnected business. Again, completely disregarding the people of the city. The majority of city residents don't want this useless council damaging the collection any more & safeguarding it by forming a truly independent trust is the only way to stop the damage. Maybe the Echo should run a poll & get a clear view of what the city's residents wants & back the support of city residents from this. Of course they won't as Murray is supporting his own personal view through the Echo - something the press complaints commission would find interesting.

I think that involving English Heritage and other cultural bodies will put pressure on your council to abandon this destructive policy. Lodging a formal complaint directly to the Press Complaints Commission and Newsquest who own The Daily Echo, regarding the unacceptable mis-use by Ian Murry of his position as editor of The Daily Echo would also help. Pointing out to the papers owners that this matter is damaging the relationship between the paper and the local readership that it supposedly represents and serves. If the collections are held in trust ( bequeathed to the city's art gallery and citizens ), then I think they should be safe, but I would still put up a fight until it is absolutely guaranteed once and for all that they cannot be sold.

Score: 4

charrlee says...11:59am Mon 24 Feb 14

in search of the truth wrote…

sotonboy84 wrote…

in search of the truth wrote…

Ahead of this planned so-called “ debate “ a freedom of information request should be made to verify any conditions that bequests of art held in the city’s art collection carry, in order to quantify if indeed any items can be disposed of by the council. I also believe that Daily Echo editor Ian Murray is in danger of overstepping the mark as he is the editor of the Daily Echo and should act as Devils Advocate in this instance, and not take sides . If however he wishes to put his career on the line , then that is his choice. If the people of Southampton beat off this attempt to sell off the family silver, then Ian Murray’s position representing the city’s newspaper would be untenable and he should resign as Daily Echo editor because he cannot in all honesty represent the people of Southampton. Once you sell off the family silver you won't ever be in a position to buy it back in future . The art collections held in trust by towns and cities have been bestowed to the citizens in those towns and cities by rich philanthropists for the benefit of all citizens . If you sell off parts of your cultural heritage then nobody will want to bestow their collections of art etc. to the city, because they will never trust those in power ever again. I wish the citizens of Southampton the very best in their fight to hold onto the family silver.

The majority of pieces have conditions attached. The two pieces that were originally earmarked for sale (Rodin sculpture & Munnings painting) were both bought through the Chipperfield trust, the first trust that bequeathed his personal art collection & funds to buy more works & build a gallery & school of art. The rules of these trusts are very clear & Letts has written to Maria Miller & asked fit the rules to be relaxed. The request was refused. The purpose of this stages debate that they are selling tickets for is to exclude the majority of the city & trying to gain support from unconnected business. Again, completely disregarding the people of the city. The majority of city residents don't want this useless council damaging the collection any more & safeguarding it by forming a truly independent trust is the only way to stop the damage. Maybe the Echo should run a poll & get a clear view of what the city's residents wants & back the support of city residents from this. Of course they won't as Murray is supporting his own personal view through the Echo - something the press complaints commission would find interesting.

I think that involving English Heritage and other cultural bodies will put pressure on your council to abandon this destructive policy. Lodging a formal complaint directly to the Press Complaints Commission and Newsquest who own The Daily Echo, regarding the unacceptable mis-use by Ian Murry of his position as editor of The Daily Echo would also help. Pointing out to the papers owners that this matter is damaging the relationship between the paper and the local readership that it supposedly represents and serves. If the collections are held in trust ( bequeathed to the city's art gallery and citizens ), then I think they should be safe, but I would still put up a fight until it is absolutely guaranteed once and for all that they cannot be sold.

What I cannot understand is why Murray is backing a highly-controversial and unpopular idea. If the art collection is protected by conditions that legally prohibit the sale, then it won't happen, and he will have to resign when the attempt to sell is prevented. So, he is either a fool (unlikely), or he knows something we don't (VERY likely-he's a journalist). Off at a tangent for a moment, I believe some kind of sulphur processing plant is going to be built near Shirley. It is going to smell, and to my knowledge, the people of Southampton were not consulted about it, or given a proper chance to oppose it. There are frequent stories in The Echo that suggest there are "things going on" regarding the management of local affairs that are in the interests of private individuals and not the public in general. Are the fears groundless, or are we being discreetly shafted, the proposed art sell-off being just one of a number of dubious plans and schemes that we should be examining much more closely?

[quote][p][bold]in search of the truth[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]in search of the truth[/bold] wrote:
Ahead of this planned so-called “ debate “ a freedom of information request should be made to verify any conditions that bequests of art held in the city’s art collection carry, in order to quantify if indeed any items can be disposed of by the council.
I also believe that Daily Echo editor Ian Murray is in danger of overstepping the mark as he is the editor of the Daily Echo and should act as Devils Advocate in this instance, and not take sides . If however he wishes to put his career on the line , then that is his choice. If the people of Southampton beat off this attempt to sell off the family silver, then Ian Murray’s position representing the city’s newspaper would be untenable and he should resign as Daily Echo editor because he cannot in all honesty represent the people of Southampton.
Once you sell off the family silver you won't ever be in a position to buy it back in future .
The art collections held in trust by towns and cities have been bestowed to the citizens in those towns and cities by rich philanthropists for the benefit of all citizens . If you sell off parts of your cultural heritage then nobody will want to bestow their collections of art etc. to the city, because they will never trust those in power ever again.
I wish the citizens of Southampton the very best in their fight to hold onto the family silver.[/p][/quote]The majority of pieces have conditions attached. The two pieces that were originally earmarked for sale (Rodin sculpture & Munnings painting) were both bought through the Chipperfield trust, the first trust that bequeathed his personal art collection & funds to buy more works & build a gallery & school of art.
The rules of these trusts are very clear & Letts has written to Maria Miller & asked fit the rules to be relaxed. The request was refused.
The purpose of this stages debate that they are selling tickets for is to exclude the majority of the city & trying to gain support from unconnected business. Again, completely disregarding the people of the city.
The majority of city residents don't want this useless council damaging the collection any more & safeguarding it by forming a truly independent trust is the only way to stop the damage.
Maybe the Echo should run a poll & get a clear view of what the city's residents wants & back the support of city residents from this. Of course they won't as Murray is supporting his own personal view through the Echo - something the press complaints commission would find interesting.[/p][/quote]I think that involving English Heritage and other cultural bodies will put pressure on your council to abandon this destructive policy.
Lodging a formal complaint directly to the Press Complaints Commission and Newsquest who own The Daily Echo, regarding the unacceptable mis-use by Ian Murry of his position as editor of The Daily Echo would also help. Pointing out to the papers owners that this matter is damaging the relationship between the paper and the local readership that it supposedly represents and serves.
If the collections are held in trust ( bequeathed to the city's art gallery and citizens ), then I think they should be safe, but I would still put up a fight until it is absolutely guaranteed once and for all that they cannot be sold.[/p][/quote]What I cannot understand is why Murray is backing a highly-controversial and unpopular idea. If the art collection is protected by conditions that legally prohibit the sale, then it won't happen, and he will have to resign when the attempt to sell is prevented. So, he is either a fool (unlikely), or he knows something we don't (VERY likely-he's a journalist).
Off at a tangent for a moment, I believe some kind of sulphur processing plant is going to be built near Shirley. It is going to smell, and to my knowledge, the people of Southampton were not consulted about it, or given a proper chance to oppose it.
There are frequent stories in The Echo that suggest there are "things going on" regarding the management of local affairs that are in the interests of private individuals and not the public in general.
Are the fears groundless, or are we being discreetly shafted, the proposed art sell-off being just one of a number of dubious plans and schemes that we should be examining much more closely?charrlee

in search of the truth wrote…

sotonboy84 wrote…

in search of the truth wrote…

Ahead of this planned so-called “ debate “ a freedom of information request should be made to verify any conditions that bequests of art held in the city’s art collection carry, in order to quantify if indeed any items can be disposed of by the council. I also believe that Daily Echo editor Ian Murray is in danger of overstepping the mark as he is the editor of the Daily Echo and should act as Devils Advocate in this instance, and not take sides . If however he wishes to put his career on the line , then that is his choice. If the people of Southampton beat off this attempt to sell off the family silver, then Ian Murray’s position representing the city’s newspaper would be untenable and he should resign as Daily Echo editor because he cannot in all honesty represent the people of Southampton. Once you sell off the family silver you won't ever be in a position to buy it back in future . The art collections held in trust by towns and cities have been bestowed to the citizens in those towns and cities by rich philanthropists for the benefit of all citizens . If you sell off parts of your cultural heritage then nobody will want to bestow their collections of art etc. to the city, because they will never trust those in power ever again. I wish the citizens of Southampton the very best in their fight to hold onto the family silver.

The majority of pieces have conditions attached. The two pieces that were originally earmarked for sale (Rodin sculpture & Munnings painting) were both bought through the Chipperfield trust, the first trust that bequeathed his personal art collection & funds to buy more works & build a gallery & school of art. The rules of these trusts are very clear & Letts has written to Maria Miller & asked fit the rules to be relaxed. The request was refused. The purpose of this stages debate that they are selling tickets for is to exclude the majority of the city & trying to gain support from unconnected business. Again, completely disregarding the people of the city. The majority of city residents don't want this useless council damaging the collection any more & safeguarding it by forming a truly independent trust is the only way to stop the damage. Maybe the Echo should run a poll & get a clear view of what the city's residents wants & back the support of city residents from this. Of course they won't as Murray is supporting his own personal view through the Echo - something the press complaints commission would find interesting.

I think that involving English Heritage and other cultural bodies will put pressure on your council to abandon this destructive policy. Lodging a formal complaint directly to the Press Complaints Commission and Newsquest who own The Daily Echo, regarding the unacceptable mis-use by Ian Murry of his position as editor of The Daily Echo would also help. Pointing out to the papers owners that this matter is damaging the relationship between the paper and the local readership that it supposedly represents and serves. If the collections are held in trust ( bequeathed to the city's art gallery and citizens ), then I think they should be safe, but I would still put up a fight until it is absolutely guaranteed once and for all that they cannot be sold.

What I cannot understand is why Murray is backing a highly-controversial and unpopular idea. If the art collection is protected by conditions that legally prohibit the sale, then it won't happen, and he will have to resign when the attempt to sell is prevented. So, he is either a fool (unlikely), or he knows something we don't (VERY likely-he's a journalist). Off at a tangent for a moment, I believe some kind of sulphur processing plant is going to be built near Shirley. It is going to smell, and to my knowledge, the people of Southampton were not consulted about it, or given a proper chance to oppose it. There are frequent stories in The Echo that suggest there are "things going on" regarding the management of local affairs that are in the interests of private individuals and not the public in general. Are the fears groundless, or are we being discreetly shafted, the proposed art sell-off being just one of a number of dubious plans and schemes that we should be examining much more closely?

Score: 1

sotonboy84 says...12:35pm Mon 24 Feb 14

in search of the truth wrote…

sotonboy84 wrote…

in search of the truth wrote…

Ahead of this planned so-called “ debate “ a freedom of information request should be made to verify any conditions that bequests of art held in the city’s art collection carry, in order to quantify if indeed any items can be disposed of by the council. I also believe that Daily Echo editor Ian Murray is in danger of overstepping the mark as he is the editor of the Daily Echo and should act as Devils Advocate in this instance, and not take sides . If however he wishes to put his career on the line , then that is his choice. If the people of Southampton beat off this attempt to sell off the family silver, then Ian Murray’s position representing the city’s newspaper would be untenable and he should resign as Daily Echo editor because he cannot in all honesty represent the people of Southampton. Once you sell off the family silver you won't ever be in a position to buy it back in future . The art collections held in trust by towns and cities have been bestowed to the citizens in those towns and cities by rich philanthropists for the benefit of all citizens . If you sell off parts of your cultural heritage then nobody will want to bestow their collections of art etc. to the city, because they will never trust those in power ever again. I wish the citizens of Southampton the very best in their fight to hold onto the family silver.

The majority of pieces have conditions attached. The two pieces that were originally earmarked for sale (Rodin sculpture & Munnings painting) were both bought through the Chipperfield trust, the first trust that bequeathed his personal art collection & funds to buy more works & build a gallery & school of art. The rules of these trusts are very clear & Letts has written to Maria Miller & asked fit the rules to be relaxed. The request was refused. The purpose of this stages debate that they are selling tickets for is to exclude the majority of the city & trying to gain support from unconnected business. Again, completely disregarding the people of the city. The majority of city residents don't want this useless council damaging the collection any more & safeguarding it by forming a truly independent trust is the only way to stop the damage. Maybe the Echo should run a poll & get a clear view of what the city's residents wants & back the support of city residents from this. Of course they won't as Murray is supporting his own personal view through the Echo - something the press complaints commission would find interesting.

I think that involving English Heritage and other cultural bodies will put pressure on your council to abandon this destructive policy. Lodging a formal complaint directly to the Press Complaints Commission and Newsquest who own The Daily Echo, regarding the unacceptable mis-use by Ian Murry of his position as editor of The Daily Echo would also help. Pointing out to the papers owners that this matter is damaging the relationship between the paper and the local readership that it supposedly represents and serves. If the collections are held in trust ( bequeathed to the city's art gallery and citizens ), then I think they should be safe, but I would still put up a fight until it is absolutely guaranteed once and for all that they cannot be sold.

I intend to put up a fight, as I'm sure many other city residents and people across the country will do. The collection has been designated as being of 'national pre-emminence' and is one of the finest collections outside of London. Every attempt that the council are making is severely damaging the reputation of the collection and bequests and donations have already been withdrawn due to the uncertainty. The collection needs safeguarding and looked after by a truly independent trust so the council have no control on it whatsoever. As I said before, it's nothing more than THEFT. The collection was built because of the generosity of individuals who wanted to bring art to the people of the city and the council are now abusing their involvement by selling pieces for their own political gain.

[quote][p][bold]in search of the truth[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]in search of the truth[/bold] wrote:
Ahead of this planned so-called “ debate “ a freedom of information request should be made to verify any conditions that bequests of art held in the city’s art collection carry, in order to quantify if indeed any items can be disposed of by the council.
I also believe that Daily Echo editor Ian Murray is in danger of overstepping the mark as he is the editor of the Daily Echo and should act as Devils Advocate in this instance, and not take sides . If however he wishes to put his career on the line , then that is his choice. If the people of Southampton beat off this attempt to sell off the family silver, then Ian Murray’s position representing the city’s newspaper would be untenable and he should resign as Daily Echo editor because he cannot in all honesty represent the people of Southampton.
Once you sell off the family silver you won't ever be in a position to buy it back in future .
The art collections held in trust by towns and cities have been bestowed to the citizens in those towns and cities by rich philanthropists for the benefit of all citizens . If you sell off parts of your cultural heritage then nobody will want to bestow their collections of art etc. to the city, because they will never trust those in power ever again.
I wish the citizens of Southampton the very best in their fight to hold onto the family silver.[/p][/quote]The majority of pieces have conditions attached. The two pieces that were originally earmarked for sale (Rodin sculpture & Munnings painting) were both bought through the Chipperfield trust, the first trust that bequeathed his personal art collection & funds to buy more works & build a gallery & school of art.
The rules of these trusts are very clear & Letts has written to Maria Miller & asked fit the rules to be relaxed. The request was refused.
The purpose of this stages debate that they are selling tickets for is to exclude the majority of the city & trying to gain support from unconnected business. Again, completely disregarding the people of the city.
The majority of city residents don't want this useless council damaging the collection any more & safeguarding it by forming a truly independent trust is the only way to stop the damage.
Maybe the Echo should run a poll & get a clear view of what the city's residents wants & back the support of city residents from this. Of course they won't as Murray is supporting his own personal view through the Echo - something the press complaints commission would find interesting.[/p][/quote]I think that involving English Heritage and other cultural bodies will put pressure on your council to abandon this destructive policy.
Lodging a formal complaint directly to the Press Complaints Commission and Newsquest who own The Daily Echo, regarding the unacceptable mis-use by Ian Murry of his position as editor of The Daily Echo would also help. Pointing out to the papers owners that this matter is damaging the relationship between the paper and the local readership that it supposedly represents and serves.
If the collections are held in trust ( bequeathed to the city's art gallery and citizens ), then I think they should be safe, but I would still put up a fight until it is absolutely guaranteed once and for all that they cannot be sold.[/p][/quote]I intend to put up a fight, as I'm sure many other city residents and people across the country will do. The collection has been designated as being of 'national pre-emminence' and is one of the finest collections outside of London.
Every attempt that the council are making is severely damaging the reputation of the collection and bequests and donations have already been withdrawn due to the uncertainty.
The collection needs safeguarding and looked after by a truly independent trust so the council have no control on it whatsoever.
As I said before, it's nothing more than THEFT. The collection was built because of the generosity of individuals who wanted to bring art to the people of the city and the council are now abusing their involvement by selling pieces for their own political gain.sotonboy84

in search of the truth wrote…

sotonboy84 wrote…

in search of the truth wrote…

Ahead of this planned so-called “ debate “ a freedom of information request should be made to verify any conditions that bequests of art held in the city’s art collection carry, in order to quantify if indeed any items can be disposed of by the council. I also believe that Daily Echo editor Ian Murray is in danger of overstepping the mark as he is the editor of the Daily Echo and should act as Devils Advocate in this instance, and not take sides . If however he wishes to put his career on the line , then that is his choice. If the people of Southampton beat off this attempt to sell off the family silver, then Ian Murray’s position representing the city’s newspaper would be untenable and he should resign as Daily Echo editor because he cannot in all honesty represent the people of Southampton. Once you sell off the family silver you won't ever be in a position to buy it back in future . The art collections held in trust by towns and cities have been bestowed to the citizens in those towns and cities by rich philanthropists for the benefit of all citizens . If you sell off parts of your cultural heritage then nobody will want to bestow their collections of art etc. to the city, because they will never trust those in power ever again. I wish the citizens of Southampton the very best in their fight to hold onto the family silver.

The majority of pieces have conditions attached. The two pieces that were originally earmarked for sale (Rodin sculpture & Munnings painting) were both bought through the Chipperfield trust, the first trust that bequeathed his personal art collection & funds to buy more works & build a gallery & school of art. The rules of these trusts are very clear & Letts has written to Maria Miller & asked fit the rules to be relaxed. The request was refused. The purpose of this stages debate that they are selling tickets for is to exclude the majority of the city & trying to gain support from unconnected business. Again, completely disregarding the people of the city. The majority of city residents don't want this useless council damaging the collection any more & safeguarding it by forming a truly independent trust is the only way to stop the damage. Maybe the Echo should run a poll & get a clear view of what the city's residents wants & back the support of city residents from this. Of course they won't as Murray is supporting his own personal view through the Echo - something the press complaints commission would find interesting.

I think that involving English Heritage and other cultural bodies will put pressure on your council to abandon this destructive policy. Lodging a formal complaint directly to the Press Complaints Commission and Newsquest who own The Daily Echo, regarding the unacceptable mis-use by Ian Murry of his position as editor of The Daily Echo would also help. Pointing out to the papers owners that this matter is damaging the relationship between the paper and the local readership that it supposedly represents and serves. If the collections are held in trust ( bequeathed to the city's art gallery and citizens ), then I think they should be safe, but I would still put up a fight until it is absolutely guaranteed once and for all that they cannot be sold.

I intend to put up a fight, as I'm sure many other city residents and people across the country will do. The collection has been designated as being of 'national pre-emminence' and is one of the finest collections outside of London. Every attempt that the council are making is severely damaging the reputation of the collection and bequests and donations have already been withdrawn due to the uncertainty. The collection needs safeguarding and looked after by a truly independent trust so the council have no control on it whatsoever. As I said before, it's nothing more than THEFT. The collection was built because of the generosity of individuals who wanted to bring art to the people of the city and the council are now abusing their involvement by selling pieces for their own political gain.

Ipsoregulated

This website and associated newspapers adhere to the Independent Press Standardards Organisations's Editors' Code of Practice. If you have a compaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then please contact the editor here. If you are dissatisfied with the response provided you can contact IPSO here